Atheism should not get protection

[MikeD4o7]

I've seen some discussions recently here about atheism as a minority where it was compared to race or homosexuality. The comparison is completely invalid in my opinion. Atheism, like any other belief or lack of belief, is chosen willingly by each individual person. There is absolutely nothing wrong in theory with a person saying they would never vote for an atheist, which is why it shouldn't be as shocking to anyone that so many people do say that. I would never vote for a scientologist, and I don't feel that I should have to apologize for saying that.

If you're a Christian, it logically makes sense for you to not want to vote for an atheist. If you believe that the only way to salvation is through following the scriptures of the New Testament, then it seems like a very rational choice from that point to want somebody leading your country who will have those scriptures in mind. Naturally you're not going to vote for somebody that doesn't even acknowledge the validity of the scriptures.

Atheism deserves no protection as a minority anymore than any political belief deserves protection and so forth.

[Groucho]

As far as I know, there are no laws that discriminate against atheists. That doesn't mean people don't discriminate against atheists, and see them as lower class citizens.

Atheists here are not asking for special laws, only to be treated with respect so they can "come out of the closet".

There are people who would never vote for a gay candidate either, but that number is getting smaller every day as gays come out and show people that they really are not evil and are not much different from anyone else. I applaud those atheists who are starting to do the same.

[Sgt Schultz]

As far as I know, there are no laws that discriminate against atheists. That doesn't mean people don't discriminate against atheists, and see them as lower class citizens.

Atheists here are not asking for special laws, only to be treated with respect so they can "come out of the closet".

There are people who would never vote for a gay candidate either, but that number is getting smaller every day as gays come out and show people that they really are not evil and are not much different from anyone else. I applaud those atheists who are starting to do the same.

There are a couple of states that still have on the books a religious requirement to hold a political office but aren't enforced. Other than that I haven't heard or seen atheists asking for special protection or rights.

[burntgorilla]

As far as I know, there are no laws that discriminate against atheists. That doesn't mean people don't discriminate against atheists, and see them as lower class citizens.

Atheists here are not asking for special laws, only to be treated with respect so they can "come out of the closet".

There are people who would never vote for a gay candidate either, but that number is getting smaller every day as gays come out and show people that they really are not evil and are not much different from anyone else. I applaud those atheists who are starting to do the same.

In America, is announcing your atheism really that similar to announcing your homosexuality?

[Sgt Schultz]

In America, is announcing your atheism really that similar to announcing your homosexuality?

I don't know. They are two very different things. One is a choice, the other isn't in my opinion.

[burntgorilla]

I don't know. They are two very different things. One is a choice, the other isn't in my opinion.

I'm talking about the general reaction to the announcement.

[Ethos]

I haven't seen anyone ask for special protections for atheists, nor would I do so myself.

There is no parallel between scientology (or any other religion) and atheism, however. Attempting to draw one forces assumptions that are unfounded.

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

All I'm saying is that comparing discrimination against atheism to discrimination against homosexuality or race doesn't hold up. It's not "wrong" to discriminate against a belief (or in this case lack of belief) in so far as voting for a political office. If there's legitimate reasons to want to keep somebody of a certain belief system from governing, then it's not wrong to do so. Nor is it wrong to say that you wouldn't want somebody who believes or doesn't believe a certain thing to hold a political office.

Just as I would say I don't want a scientologist to be president because I feel the decisions he makes that are influenced by that won't be reasonable and could possibly be dangerous, a Christian or any other theist could say that they don't want an atheist to be president because, according to their beliefs, that person would lack the necessary influence of God or the scriptures to make the best decisions possible.

In that way, atheism is comparable to any other religion or belief.

[Sgt Schultz]

I guess I'm confused about your post then. I don't see homosexuals, people of different races or atheists asking for special protection when it comes to holding or even running for political office. :confused:

[Ethos]

All I'm saying is that comparing discrimination against atheism to discrimination against homosexuality or race doesn't hold up. It's not "wrong" to discriminate against a belief (or in this case lack of belief) in so far as voting for a political office. If there's legitimate reasons to want to keep somebody of a certain belief system from governing, then it's not wrong to do so. Nor is it wrong to say that you wouldn't want somebody who believes or doesn't believe a certain thing to hold a political office.

Just as I would say I don't want a scientologist to be president because I feel the decisions he makes that are influenced by that won't be reasonable and could possibly be dangerous, a Christian or any other theist could say that they don't want an atheist to be president because, according to their beliefs, that person would lack the necessary influence of God or the scriptures to make the best decisions possible.

In that way, atheism is comparable to any other religion or belief.

Discrimination is "wrong" when it is based on inaccurate information pertaining to an individual's categorization. If all you know of a candidate is they are an atheist, you do not have enough information to make a rational judgement as to their qualities as a leader. You are then basing your support (or lack thereof) on nothing more substantive than assumptions.

It is entirely possible for an atheist to hold the same basic moral beliefs (for instance) as any Christian, it is only the origin that differs. In a similar way, it is possible a professed Christian would have a moral set that is antithetical to your own. You cannot rightly assume either conclusion in this case.

Ethos

[Groucho]

I'm talking about the general reaction to the announcement.

Well, if I ever wanted to run for political office, it would be suicide. I'm sure that if I announced it publicly or made a speech about it, I would lose business.

[Groucho]

All I'm saying is that comparing discrimination against atheism to discrimination against homosexuality or race doesn't hold up. It's not "wrong" to discriminate against a belief (or in this case lack of belief) in so far as voting for a political office. If there's legitimate reasons to want to keep somebody of a certain belief system from governing, then it's not wrong to do so. Nor is it wrong to say that you wouldn't want somebody who believes or doesn't believe a certain thing to hold a political office.

Just as I would say I don't want a scientologist to be president because I feel the decisions he makes that are influenced by that won't be reasonable and could possibly be dangerous, a Christian or any other theist could say that they don't want an atheist to be president because, according to their beliefs, that person would lack the necessary influence of God or the scriptures to make the best decisions possible.

In that way, atheism is comparable to any other religion or belief.

I understand that viewpoint, but the problem is that people would rather elect a Scientologist than an atheist.

Can people make a decision based on religious belief (or lack thereof)? Of course. Some people will never vote for a Jew or a Catholic or a Mormon or a Muslim. But there are less of these people every day. Tolerance for other religions has been increasing.

Now, can we try to educate people so that perhaps this prejudice against atheists also starts to fall? I certainly hope so.

I am positive there are and have been atheist politicians, many of whom have been excellent. But because they are forced to be in the closet, people are not aware of it.

[MikeD4o7]

Discrimination is "wrong" when it is based on inaccurate information pertaining to an individual's categorization. If all you know of a candidate is they are an atheist, you do not have enough information to make a rational judgement as to their qualities as a leader. You are then basing your support (or lack thereof) on nothing more substantive than assumptions.

It is entirely possible for an atheist to hold the same basic moral beliefs (for instance) as any Christian, it is only the origin that differs. In a similar way, it is possible a professed Christian would have a moral set that is antithetical to your own. You cannot rightly assume either conclusion in this case.

Ethos

I would argue that you can make certain assumptions. For example, we can be relatively sure that an atheist won't be in favor of faith based initiatives in schools, and will maintain the wall of separation between church and state. It's very possible that some Christian voters see faith based initiatives in schools as a great idea that they want their representative to be in favor of, and it's possible that they're in favor of at least weakening the wall of separation. There's countless other examples of things that people of various beliefs may hold as very dear, that they can safely assume somebody of another belief does not. I don't think it's wrong in principle to vote or not vote for somebody based on them.

Keep in mind that this never enters into the debate of what beliefs are correct.

[MikeD4o7]

I understand that viewpoint, but the problem is that people would rather elect a Scientologist than an atheist.

Can people make a decision based on religious belief (or lack thereof)? Of course. Some people will never vote for a Jew or a Catholic or a Mormon or a Muslim. But there are less of these people every day. Tolerance for other religions has been increasing.

Now, can we try to educate people so that perhaps this prejudice against atheists also starts to fall? I certainly hope so.

I am positive there are and have been atheist politicians, many of whom have been excellent. But because they are forced to be in the closet, people are not aware of it.

I don't think Scientologists would view that as a problem :)

Also, I think the claim that we've become more tolerant of religious beliefs is true to an extent, but can also be misleading. The scientology example fits here, as we're certainly not tolerant of that belief. Nor are we tolerant of the fundamental sects of any of the major religions. The religious beliefs that we've become so tolerant of are just the ones that have adapted themselves to be unoffensive to our society's generally shared values. For example, according to the Bible, there shouldn't be anyone working on Sundays... that doesn't fit with the values of our society though, which is why you'll get weird looks if you seriously suggest it.

[Ethos]

I would argue that you can make certain assumptions. For example, we can be relatively sure that an atheist won't be in favor of faith based initiatives in schools, and will maintain the wall of separation between church and state. It's very possible that some Christian voters see faith based initiatives in schools as a great idea that they want their representative to be in favor of, and it's possible that they're in favor of at least weakening the wall of separation. There's countless other examples of things that people of various beliefs may hold as very dear, that they can safely assume somebody of another belief does not. I don't think it's wrong in principle to vote or not vote for somebody based on them.

Keep in mind that this never enters into the debate of what beliefs are correct.

You are wrong. You cannot safely assume anything. There are countless examples of things that people of various beliefs may hold dear, but the key word is "may" - that is you cannot know for sure unless they volunteer that information or are asked for a response. The best you can do is knowing a Christian will have at least a minor affinity for Jesus Christ (by definition), and an atheist will have no belief in god(s) (again, by definition).

Anything more is purely your own inference and a potentially faulty conclusion, and this is what makes such assumptions terribly ill-conceived. In fact, your entire thread is based upon an assumption that has not proven to be accurate. Is this not a good example of why it is important to seek the facts rather than believing you already know them?

Ethos

[ptac4x4]

Atheism deserves no protection as a minority anymore than any political belief deserves protection and so forth.

This to me was the main point of the post. Keeping this in mind, it seems the statement makes sense. Atheism deserves no protection as a minority. They do have the same protection and rights as any citizen.

[MikeD4o7]

You are wrong. You cannot safely assume anything. There are countless examples of things that people of various beliefs may hold dear, but the key word is "may" - that is you cannot know for sure unless they volunteer that information or are asked for a response. The best you can do is knowing a Christian will have at least a minor affinity for Jesus Christ (by definition), and an atheist will have no belief in god(s) (again, by definition).

Anything more is purely your own inference and a potentially faulty conclusion, and this is what makes such assumptions terribly ill-conceived. In fact, your entire thread is based upon an assumption that has not proven to be accurate. Is this not a good example of why it is important to seek the facts rather than believing you already know them?

Ethos

I don't follow. I'm giving you reasons why many Christians would never vote for an atheist. If you think that example assumes too much, I guess I could give one in which no assumption has to be made.

If there's a Christian that believes that in order to be the best leader you can be, you need to take advice directly from Jesus, then it's reasonable for that person, within what they believe, to state that they would never vote for an atheist for president.

This is just one example, but there's plenty of other possible ones here. All that I'm saying is that a Christian stating "I would never vote for an atheist" is not an unreasonable position for a Christian to have given what they believe.



This to me was the main point of the post. Keeping this in mind, it seems the statement makes sense. Atheism deserves no protection as a minority. They do have the same protection and rights as any citizen.

Exactly

[lawman]

All I'm saying is that comparing discrimination against atheism to discrimination against homosexuality or race doesn't hold up. It's not "wrong" to discriminate against a belief (or in this case lack of belief) in so far as voting for a political office. If there's legitimate reasons to want to keep somebody of a certain belief system from governing, then it's not wrong to do so.
Oh? What about...
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
So it really depends on what you mean by "discrimination" here. If you, personally, as an individual voter, choose not to vote for a candidate on the basis of his religion (or lack thereof) -- well, that's as valid as any other reason, I suppose (if only in the sense that no voter has to provide any reasons at all). OTOH, if you're suggesting that the law should recognize such a criterion as valid, you're way off base.

And in a general, cultural sense, I should hope that the sort of prejudice you describe would be something you'd agree we should work to diminish (since notwithstanding that individuals have a "right" to think that way, it doesn't make thinking that way "right").

If there's a Christian that believes that in order to be the best leader you can be, you need to take advice directly from Jesus, then it's reasonable for that person, within what they believe, to state that they would never vote for an atheist for president.
You must have a different definition of "reasonable" than I do. Is it predictable that someone might think that way? Depressingly, yes. But I'd venture to say that anyone who believes what you posit in your first clause here has already thrown "reason" to the side of the road as far as any subsequent decisions go.

[Dangerrmouse]

I'm interested in the usage of the word "deserves". Would this be in the same sense that the Victorians held, that there were two categories of poor person. The "Deserving" and the "Undeserving".

[Ethos]

There are two final points here.

First, no one has asked for "protection" for atheists in any thread. If there is a worry that such a request will come, be assured it will not be from me and judging from the responses thus far, it will not come from any other atheist on this forum.

Second, refusing to vote for an atheist on principle is a fine position, however it is not a reasoned one. I would be equally as unreasonable were I to refuse a vote to a theist for that label alone.

Ethos

[serenity]

First, no one has asked for "protection" for atheists in any thread.

Exactly. It’s not as if such an idea was even being debated.

[DRMIZER]

sorry. . .see below!!

[DRMIZER]

As far as I know, there are no laws that discriminate against atheists. That doesn't mean people don't discriminate against atheists, and see them as lower class citizens.

Atheists here are not asking for special laws, only to be treated with respect so they can "come out of the closet".

There are people who would never vote for a gay candidate either, but that number is getting smaller every day as gays come out and show people that they really are not evil and are not much different from anyone else. I applaud those atheists who are starting to do the same.There are atheists who have "come out of the closet" and have lost friends, family members and jobs. Discrimination is discrimination. No one goes into public and talks about being an atheist without negative consequences.

[MikeD4o7]

So it really depends on what you mean by "discrimination" here. If you, personally, as an individual voter, choose not to vote for a candidate on the basis of his religion (or lack thereof) -- well, that's as valid as any other reason, I suppose (if only in the sense that no voter has to provide any reasons at all). OTOH, if you're suggesting that the law should recognize such a criterion as valid, you're way off base.


I'm certainly not arguing that the law upholds that. I'm saying that as individual voters, given what they already believe, it's not unreasonable from their positions to say they would never vote for an atheist. Quite frankly, if I truly believed that the guidance of Jesus Christ was absolutely necessary to make the best decisions possible in life, then you can bet I wouldn't be voting for anything but Christians. Now if you want to argue that you don't need Jesus to make the best decisions in life, that's fine, but it's for another thread. For the sake of what I'm saying here, I'm putting myself in the shoes of other people with religious beliefs that they deeply truly believe, and going off of what's reasonable at that point given those beliefs.

And in a general, cultural sense, I should hope that the sort of prejudice you describe would be something you'd agree we should work to diminish (since notwithstanding that individuals have a "right" to think that way, it doesn't make thinking that way "right").

Again, given what they already deeply and truly believe concerning their own religion, I don't think it's something that anybody should be faulted for. Atheists know that Christians choose to be Christians and believe in things that it entails, and Muslims know that Atheists choose to be atheists and to believe (or in this case disbelieve) things that entails and so on. In that sense, it's no different than a political stance that a politician could take. I see no reason not to at least factor it in when choosing a candidate.

You must have a different definition of "reasonable" than I do. Is it predictable that someone might think that way? Depressingly, yes. But I'd venture to say that anyone who believes what you posit in your first clause here has already thrown "reason" to the side of the road as far as any subsequent decisions go.

But pretty much nobody completely throws reason away. The line of thinking here is that religious belief does not have to comply 100% with reason. It's something that's felt and held on faith. Our normal powers of logic and reason aren't sufficient when applied to the metaphysical.

I personally don't agree with that, but that's the consensus that our society as a whole has reached. Religious truths are discovered in other ways than reason, however they're still truths. Reason will always be applied to these earthly situations such as presidential elections, but the truths we know from our religions should be kept in mind when applying reason to these situations.

That's the reality of the way our society feels, and that's the viewpoint they're approaching from. This is why I'm starting with "given what they already believe".

The bottom line is that you can't tell a theist that they shouldn't say they would never vote for an atheist. It's completely reasonable given what they do believe to never want to vote for one. It would require convincing them that their entire belief system shouldn't be believed before you could reasonably argue to them that there's no reason not to vote for an atheist.

[lawman]

I'm certainly not arguing that the law upholds that. I'm saying that as individual voters, given what they already believe, it's not unreasonable from their positions to say they would never vote for an atheist... I'm putting myself in the shoes of other people with religious beliefs that they deeply truly believe, and going off of what's reasonable at that point given those beliefs.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. However, I still think it's a bit iffy to say that when you start with the premise that someone bases all their judgments on a single prejudicial criterion, you can call their conclusions "reasonable" in any serious sense. One might as well say that if one is a diehard white supremacist, believing deeply and sincerely in the inferiority of other races, it's "reasonable" not to vote for any minority candidates.

But pretty much nobody completely throws reason away. The line of thinking here is that religious belief does not have to comply 100% with reason. It's something that's felt and held on faith.
Help me out here: I don't see how your second and third sentences do anything other than contradict your first. Especially if you "personally don't agree with that," why are you bending over backward to act as if by-definition-unreasonable beliefs are reasonable?

It would require convincing them that their entire belief system shouldn't be believed before you could reasonably argue to them that there's no reason not to vote for an atheist.
Yes: just as you would have to convince the white supremacist he's wrong in order to get him to vote for a minority. While he's entitled to hold that belief, though, and even to vote based on it, that doesn't make it "reasonable" -- it's still a matter of prejudice (literally: a judgment formed in advance of evidence).

[MikeD4o7]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. However, I still think it's a bit iffy to say that when you start with the premise that someone bases all their judgments on a single prejudicial criterion, you can call their conclusions "reasonable" in any serious sense. One might as well say that if one is a diehard white supremacist, believing deeply and sincerely in the inferiority of other races, it's "reasonable" not to vote for any minority candidates.


Yes, the difference in this case that I'm talking about though is that it's pretty much agreed in our society that beliefs of racial superiority should be challenged and criticized. That's not the case with religious beliefs. In our society, you're supposed to leave religious beliefs alone and respect everyone's religious beliefs.

On a sidenote, the comparison of "prejudice" against a religious belief or lack thereof to that of a race is one of the things I was arguing against originally in this thread. Religious beliefs are chosen willingly. It would be wrong to discriminate for example and say "I don't want a black person teaching my child's science class" because it's an inherent trait that has absolutely nothing to do with how the class would be taught. On the other hand, it's not wrong to say "I don't want a scientologist teaching my kid's science class" because it's a chosen belief, and it could very well have an effect on what's taught. The same goes for religious beliefs when it comes to public office.

Help me out here: I don't see how your second and third sentences do anything other than contradict your first. Especially if you "personally don't agree with that," why are you bending over backward to act as if by-definition-unreasonable beliefs are reasonable?

I'm just saying that everyone applies reason most of the time. Religion is just the one subject that our society has deemed to be above it.

[DRMIZER]

Yes, the difference in this case that I'm talking about though is that it's pretty much agreed in our society that beliefs of racial superiority should be challenged and criticized. That's not the case with religious beliefs. In our society, you're supposed to leave religious beliefs alone and respect everyone's religious beliefs.

On a sidenote, the comparison of "prejudice" against a religious belief or lack thereof to that of a race is one of the things I was arguing against originally in this thread. Religious beliefs are chosen willingly. It would be wrong to discriminate for example and say "I don't want a black person teaching my child's science class" because it's an inherent trait that has absolutely nothing to do with how the class would be taught. On the other hand, it's not wrong to say "I don't want a scientologist teaching my kid's science class" because it's a chosen belief, and it could very well have an effect on what's taught. The same goes for religious beliefs when it comes to public office.



I'm just saying that everyone applies reason most of the time. Religion is just the one subject that our society has deemed to be above it.Great points which sums up the difference between dogma and rational thought.

[Ethos]

I haven't yet seen an argument which logically differentiates the individual who refuses to vote for a black candidate from the individual who refuses to vote for an atheist candidate. Originally I was in agreement that the prejudices are not equal, however at this point I am considering the parallels. Other than some vague societal allowance that seems to claim a legitimacy for religious discrimination while racial discrimination is frowned upon, there is nothing reasonable in forming such opinions.

Ethos

[lawman]

Yes, the difference in this case that I'm talking about though is that it's pretty much agreed in our society that beliefs of racial superiority should be challenged and criticized. That's not the case with religious beliefs. In our society, you're supposed to leave religious beliefs alone and respect everyone's religious beliefs... Religion is just the one subject that our society has deemed to be above it.
Well, here's the crux of the matter. You seem to feel that what "society says" about this is, itself, fair and reasonable.

I, on the other hand, question whether "society says" this so unequivocally in the first place; and second, to whatever extent it is said, I find it to be hypocritical and irrational. In particular, saying that "respecting everyone's religious beliefs" is an excuse for not respecting someone on the exclusive basis of their (lack of) religious beliefs is simply not coherent. However accepted this may be today, it's an attitude that should be challenged and criticized.

It needs to be clear that believing in one's own personal set of religious precepts does not mean believing that those who see things differently are unworthy of trust, respect, or equal treatment. It's possible to disagree without passing judgment in a prejudicial manner.

[MikeD4o7]

Well, here's the crux of the matter. You seem to feel that what "society says" about this is, itself, fair and reasonable.

I, on the other hand, question whether "society says" this so unequivocally in the first place; and second, to whatever extent it is said, I find it to be hypocritical and irrational. In particular, saying that "respecting everyone's religious beliefs" is an excuse for not respecting someone on the exclusive basis of their (lack of) religious beliefs is simply not coherent. However accepted this may be today, it's an attitude that should be challenged and criticized.

It needs to be clear that believing in one's own personal set of religious precepts does not mean believing that those who see things differently are unworthy of trust, respect, or equal treatment. It's possible to disagree without passing judgment in a prejudicial manner.

I'm really not sure if you and I actually disagree on anything here. Let me just make a very general point and ask a very broad question.

Race is an inherent trait that nobody chooses, and it is in no way an indication of the way a person thinks or views the world. Religion is the opposite. Everybody chooses their religious beliefs, and it does affect the way a person views the world. In that respect, religion carries the exact same characteristics as a political ideology. Because of this, is it not reasonable in your mind to ever want to not vote for somebody because of their religious beliefs? We do the same thing for a person's political beliefs... and it's certainly not unreasonable to say that a person's religious beliefs will likely affect certain decisions they make when governing.

[DRMIZER]

I haven't yet seen an argument which logically differentiates the individual who refuses to vote for a black candidate from the individual who refuses to vote for an atheist candidate. Originally I was in agreement that the prejudices are not equal, however at this point I am considering the parallels. Other than some vague societal allowance that seems to claim a legitimacy for religious discrimination while racial discrimination is frowned upon, there is nothing reasonable in forming such opinions.

EthosIf I understand your statement, I agree that individuals who would not vote for a Black is the same as a person not voting for an atheist. Ex. If GWB had declared himself an atheist prior to his first election, he would be sitting in Crawford, Tx doing farm stuff.

[lawman]

I'm really not sure if you and I actually disagree on anything here.
I don't think we really do, either, except in how much benefit of the doubt we're willing to give certain closed-minded people.

Race is an inherent trait that nobody chooses, and it is in no way an indication of the way a person thinks or views the world. Religion is the opposite. Everybody chooses their religious beliefs, and it does affect the way a person views the world...
I wish everybody actually "chose" their religious beliefs. In reality, though, the single most determinative factor of your religious affiliation is the family you were born into. Many people quite plainly think of religion as an inherited characteristic -- note the discussions on this board (and in Dawkins' book) about whether or not it's fair to refer to "Catholic children," "Muslim children," etc., when the kids being discussed are too young to have made an informed choice. Moreover, some religions (Judaism in particular) are quite literally indistinguishable from ethnic heritage; you're still Jewish even if you're an atheist.

In that respect, religion carries the exact same characteristics as a political ideology. Because of this, is it not reasonable in your mind to ever want to not vote for somebody because of their religious beliefs?
Only up to a certain point. If someone were to say they would never vote for a Republican, period, without bothering to consider what a particular candidate actually stands for, then I would condemn that as unreasonable prejudice as well.

[DRMIZER]

I wish everybody actually "chose" their religious beliefs. In reality, though, the single most determinative factor of your religious affiliation is the family you were born into. Many people quite plainly think of religion as an inherited characteristic -- note the discussions on this board (and in Dawkins' book) about whether or not it's fair to refer to "Catholic children," "Muslim children," etc., when the kids being discussed are too young to have made an informed choice. Moreover, some religions (Judaism in particular) are quite literally indistinguishable from ethnic heritage; you're still Jewish even if you're an atheist. So profoundly simple and correct yet so profoundly deniable by those who "believe" their rligion is the ONLY religion. Many don't seem to get it. If I was born in Japan, chances are I would not be Christian or consider it an important part of my life. However, Shinto would be just as valid as any concept in Christianity. We believe because we were born into the concept, not because we have the best or only concept.

[Atticus]

There are atheists who have "come out of the closet" and have lost friends, family members and jobs. Discrimination is discrimination. No one goes into public and talks about being an atheist without negative consequences.That's an interesting thought. First, I'm not sure you can regulate families and friendships--certainly those are extra-legal relationships. There's very little you can do to change those things--perhaps you could start a foundation and run public service announcements. As for losing one's job--again, that seems a little ridiculous unless the job itself was related to religious belief or was connected to a religious institution. Something tells me a Christian minister who announces she's an atheist probably would have a hard time holding on to a church, if that's what you mean.

Is religion really an appropriate topic for the workplace?

[DRMIZER]

I believe I was referring to interpersonal relationship and used the institutions as examples. My writing was in response to Lawman's post, not to a multitude of other ideas, concepts or attitudes which may arise.

I don't think you can regulate these kinds of relationships in any sense. I didn't write anything about changing them. Since I'm not an atheist I'm not concerned one way or the other. But, discrimination is discrimination. Are you saying these kinds of discriminations don't occur?

"Is religion really an appropriate topic for the workplace?" Not for me but ask the Chick-fil-a people and they will say it's necessary to work with them.

[Atticus]

I believe I was referring to interpersonal relationship and used the institutions as examples. My writing was in response to Lawman's post, not to a multitude of other ideas, concepts or attitudes which may arise.

I don't think you can regulate these kinds of relationships in any sense. I didn't write anything about changing them. Since I'm not an atheist I'm not concerned one way or the other. But, discrimination is discrimination. Are you saying these kinds of discriminations don't occur? No, because I can't prove a negative, to start with. The problem comes with deciding what a private employer wants to require of employees.

An example: When I was applying for jobs at universities, a few had fairly strict faith requirements; some wanted a statement about my own beliefs, others wanted me to sign a confession of faith they had written up. I never got a rejection letter so fast from anyone as from BYU, and I remember another school didn't want me when I told them how much I admired my Buddhist and Pagan friends. It was clear that I wasn't a good fit for those schools, but I wouldn't prevent them from requiring statements like those for others.

[AgentM]

I think the fact that you even have conversations about protection for atheists, says something about the US.

[Sgt Schultz]

Is religion really an appropriate topic for the workplace?

Is it appropriate? Probably not but like all other things in life faith comes up in conversation. In all of my experiences (so far) I was on active duty so it wasn't like I could get fired. Now that I'm retired I still work with most of those people so it isn't an issue as they know me. However this here is just one example that it can happen:

Story (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of _atheism_firing/)

If you read through some of the atheist websites out there you'll find similar experiences from people.

[DRMIZER]

Is it appropriate? Probably not but like all other things in life faith comes up in conversation. In all of my experiences (so far) I was on active duty so it wasn't like I could get fired. Now that I'm retired I still work with most of those people so it isn't an issue as they know me. However this here is just one example that it can happen:

Story (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of _atheism_firing/)

If you read through some of the atheist websites out there you'll find similar experiences from people.
The story you provided was more to the point of my post. It happens day in and day out if only by innuendo. To footnote Lawman's post. . . .a person didn't choose to be Christian but he did choose to become an atheist.

[Mickey Shane]

I think the fact that you even have conversations about protection for atheists, says something about the US.

Please tell us, what does that say about the US?

[AgentM]

Please tell us, what does that say about the US?

I don't think I need to spell it out.

[Mickey Shane]

I don't think I need to spell it out.

Are you looking down your nose at us?

[AgentM]

Are you looking down your nose at us?

I'm not going be baited into America-bashing. I'm sure you're smart enough to take an educated guess at what my opinion of your situation is.

[Dangerrmouse]

It suggests that calling yourself an atheist in the US would place you socially somewhere betwixt a communist and a pedophile. Or am I wrong?

[burntgorilla]

Which is quite weird in a developed society.

[Sgt Schultz]

It suggests that calling yourself an atheist in the US would place you socially somewhere betwixt a communist and a pedophile. Or am I wrong?

Depending on who you tell...yes.

[Mickey Shane]

Satanists get protection under the law. Perhaps not in community circles.

[Atticus]

It suggests that calling yourself an atheist in the US would place you socially somewhere betwixt a communist and a pedophile. Or am I wrong?You're not wrong--you're exaggerating. It's all about where you live. In NYC, no one would bat an eye. In a small town in the rural south....they'd tell you to go live in NYC.

A better comparison might be someone in Yorkshire who declared himself a rabid Francophile. ;)

[towski]

You're not wrong--you're exaggerating. It's all about where you live. In NYC, no one would bat an eye. In a small town in the rural south....they'd tell you to go live in NYC.

A better comparison might be someone in Yorkshire who declared himself a rabid Francophile. ;)

Why point out that he's exaggerating? Happens all the time. Old hat. :D ;) :p

[MikeD4o7]

You're not wrong--you're exaggerating. It's all about where you live. In NYC, no one would bat an eye. In a small town in the rural south....they'd tell you to go live in NYC.

A better comparison might be someone in Yorkshire who declared himself a rabid Francophile. ;)

I agree that the pedophile part is definitely an exaggeration, but the communist part might actually be kind of close. I think it's also kind of astounding how big of a difference the reaction is between these two statements "i'm an atheist" and "i'm not really religious". I think that in front of a group of 10 people, you'll at the very least get some raised eyebrows with the first statement, regardless of whether you're in NY or not. The second statement though for some reason is almost completely harmless except in devoutly religious households. I think that further supports the idea that the common value or society seems to have reached is that "you have to believe in SOMETHING". It doesn't matter what it is, as long as you have some "spiritual" belief, then you're one of us. That seems to be the general feeling in America that I get.

[burntgorilla]

I was thinking about. Has anyone seen Malcolm in the Middle? God doesn't get mentioned at all in that, I can't see any of them being religious. Same with Friends. In the Simpsons Marge is the only one in the family who actually seems to really believe.